Pre-match: Can't believe it took this long for this thread, the 2024 Presidential election thread!

You're calling me the Taliban? That's insulting. Is this allowed here?

I didn't bring religion into it. A supposed atheist did for a lame gotcha moment.

Can you actually follow a conversation without getting abusive and hysterical. I didn't cite the Bible. Sounders did. I showed him where he was wrong about what he was claiming.

I also asked if he thought that Biblical law should replace law of the land.

Please follow along, or stay in your lane and learn something if you cannot.

 

I love how his fans can keep on saying he can't be antisemitic, stand shoulder to shoulder with the evangelicals, and not know what the core of his base wants and just how antisemitic they truly are.

They literally want to exterminate all the Jews as a blood sacrifice to bring Jesus back ffs.

 

The one that was about a point I was not addressing?

 

the issue wasn’t why Christians would vote for Republicans. It was why Christians would vote for Trump.

accusing someone of moving the goalposts while moving the goal posts is a troll move.

Also, tripping on the idiom “moving the goalposts” suggests you’re not American. The fact that you’re pretending to care is telling.

Conclusion: TROLL. DO NOT FEED.

 

And yet, he summed up the entire law into two commands: Love God and love your neighbor as yourself. In other words, he took the letter of the law and summed them up with the spirit of the law.

Now, if you are saying that Jesus commands everyone to do the letter of the law, then not treating foreigners as native-born citizens is in direct violation of what God commanded and Jesus reaffirmed. So once again, we are back full circle to how can a Christian support Trump? But if you are saying that people don't have to treat the foreign born as native-born, as God commanded, then you are violating what Jesus said in the quote you posted. Seems like a Catch-22 situation to me.

 

I already have. You just don't accept what I said. I can't help you with that.

 

You're trying to say that fullfiled means the law is no longer relevant. I proved that was false, and easily.

Jesus said, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished”

Nothing has disappeared so your claim that the law is irrelevant is irrelevant.

And how did we get here? A rhetorical question you say.

When will you actually attempt to answer my original question? Anyone?

pic.twitter.com/UFGYywYK7b

— Patrick Lanfear (@planfear7) November 9, 2024

What do you disagree with in Lanfears video?

You said the Bible doesn't condemn abortion. It's pretty obvious by that passage that the Bible states what God is doing in making the being in the womb.

You are making a logical jump that is not included in that passage.[/quote]

Which was what exactly? Please explain.

I'll put my original quote back in here for context

"9 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Not only did he say he wasn't there to destroy the law, but he's clearly saying don't break any of them too."

There's no leap there, it's pretty easy to comprehend, if you're into having an honest discussion. It's pretty obvious you are not.

What's your basis for making this claim? Christians in the 1960's were not against abortion? How do you come to this conclusion?

And no, that does not answer my original question because Christian beliefs do not always line up very well with what Jesus taught. And that point is pretty obvious based on this discussion.
1. Psalm 139:13-14
“For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb.”

The Bible affirms that God is intimately involved in the creation and development of human life in the womb.

You brought the Bible into this and specifically what Jesus said, again, as a gotcha moment. It didn't work.

Are you going to answer me then, are we supposed to change the law of the land with Biblical law? Since you will say no, as an atheist who doesn't believe in the Bible, then why would illegal immigrants taking jobs from Americans need a Biblical reference to justify?

You made the argument, not me.

 

You actually didn't. You simply asserted I was reinterpreting it, without saying how it should be interpreted.

 

How was the love he showed for the money changers in the temple fitting into your idea of what he meant by "love"? Tough love? Not the kind of love you like? Not love at all?

Again, he said the law was not destroyed and wouldn't be till the Earth and Heaven disappear. So I guess that hasn't happened yet, and once more, when are you going to answer whether you want Biblical law replacing our laws? Today, tomorrow, never? If the obvious, then what is relevance does bringing Leviticus, as you did, into this discussion?

Back to Lanfear. What do you disagree with?

I'm not saying it, Jesus said it right there if you believe everything in the Bible to be true.

Back to my question above. When do we replace law of the land with Biblical law?

 

Saying "no you didn't" is as much of a lame argument as claiming we need Biblical law back to govern this country. You did that, not me.

 

It's the left that is displaying anti-semitism these days. Where have you been? For real!

 

Platform over politician? Not voting Republican means they would support many policies not congruent with their beliefs. Tell me that isn't hard to understand.

I asked the same question I've been asking from the beginning which none of you have attempted to give a response to, rather make goal posts changes. That's not the same thing as a goal post change. I'm trying to bring it back to the beginning. I guess you can't answer my question because it would prove that most of your assertions aren't congruent with reality.

 

I said that perhaps they vote republican because they don't like laws that give state control over their children, particularly in gender reassigning "care". You said I needed better news sources. I cited the law in California. Sorry that didn't work out for you.

 

What does fulfill mean?

What does accomplish mean in this context?

I explained the problem with the Snopes article.

I explained that just because Trump says things sometimes, that doesn't mean he doesn't do racist things.

David said God knit him together in his mother's womb. That is not a command to do or not to do something. You are assuming it carries moral weight, when it doesn't.

Because it is a well established historical fact that evangelical Christians did not oppose abortion until the 1970s. If you would read more academic articles, you might be aware of such things.

Go back and read what I said about answering a question with a rhetorical device. I have already explained it multiple times.

 

And back in circles we go. Sounders, what does "I'm not here to destroy the law" and "don't break them" mean? Why are you so dishonest son? You don't even like or believe in the Bible. How do you bring yourself to use it to make an argument that is irrelevant to begin with. Too funny.

I have to go. Maybe later.

Sounders, I'll wait till you answer when the Bible and Leviticus should replace the laws of the land.
Maybe by then you have a response to Lanfear, without the seethe. Unless you're still serious about leaving the US with your students.
I think you're overreacting and you're reaching by twisting scripture, but if that makes you feel better and helps you reason through your hysteria of a Trump victory and convinced you to stay teaching, then at least I've been of some value to you.

Have a great day.

 

Republicans are dates right advocates, as shown by the repeal of Roe v. Wade. So you think voting republican would be voting against states rights? If they don’t like a certain state law concerning your pet issue, shouldn’t they go to that specific state, in the case of your example, California? Why should people from Florida get to have a say about the rights in California?

 

I've already told you many times. Go back and read it, I will not repeat it again.

I don't. In fact, I say large segments of the Bible are historically and demonstrably false. Just because I know the Bible, understand Christianity, etc., does not imply in any way, shape or form that I believe it to be true. A person can be academically knowledgeable without "belief" in it.

We shouldn't. I appreciate you do not understand the context of the comment I made to another poster, but you really need to step back, breathe and reread everything.

 

We've regressed to "Nuh uh, you are!"

 

You didn't answer the questions I asked, so why should I be expected to answer yours over and over and over and over and over ...

Who says I don't like it? You do realize that like and belief are not the same thing, right? And what's with this "son" thing, grandpa?

Context is a beautiful thing.

********ing hell dude, how many times do I have to respond to it before you stop asking me to respond? 50?

I move January 2nd. I'm not taking students with me as if they are my children. I've created an avenue for them to leave if they wish. I encourage them to do so, especially if they are a minority or a female.

Whether I'm overreacting or not is not important. I have made a decision and I am acting on it. A gay atheist college professor who teaches human evolution, race, gender, sexual orientation, biological sex, etc. has no future in Trump's America. And given his admiration of Putin, Hitler and Orban, the writing is on the wall (another Biblical reference there, in case you missed it). I am fully aware of how the situation for LGBT+ deteroriated in those countries and how their model is evident in what Republicans have already started doing at the state level and plan to do at the national level. You might be fully ignorant about such things, I am not.

 

Arguing with leftists is exhausting. They grove off emotion and have no policy to back up their claims

 

It's not exhausting, it exposes how dishonest they are. Sounders takes the cake so far. Watch him at work and you'll understand that the mentality comes from a place of weakness, mentally. They can't cope with their own dishonesty, lying is secondary. They mostly believe their bs.

Sounders, leave if you must. People with real conviction and who believe they are on the right side of history stay and fight, don't turn their back and run. The first part of that sentence is a hint to you.

Please look up context. You need a serious lesson in it too.

 

You're totally fine with me being called the Taliban. That's a pretty hypocritical stance to take. I'm sorry but can't take you serious. If I feel that my country is going in the wrong direction, I'd be inclined to fight, like I guess the voters did this time around. Ones that weren't deceased that is.

 

You can't blame him - prior to this conversation he's had a total of 5 BigSoccer posts, regardless of forum or thread, with the last one being in September. It's not like he's going to have an understanding of who people are here.